The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)
Until now I have argued verbally that the spacetime diagram,
and the Minkowski spacetime it represents, cannot portray
a really existing spacetime. This time I have added a page
to my website on which these arguments are presented
as illustrations on actual spacetime diagrams. The page
also contains some text, but the diagrams speak for
themselves, so it is not necessary to read the text in order
to understand what they are saying. The failures of the
spacetime diagram, and the associated Minkowski spacetime,
are all marked in red on the diagrams.
I would add, here, that all those so-called crackpots, like
Henri Wilson, Androcles, and others who have rejected
the SR light postulate outright as an impossible fabrication,
or whatever, have always been correct. A universal velocity
of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
real spacetime. My solution for implementing the light
postulate does not change that fact, because it produces
only an APPARENT universal velocity of light, but not
a real universal velocity of a single light pulse.
> The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)
> Until now I have argued verbally that the spacetime diagram,
> and the Minkowski spacetime it represents, cannot portray
> a really existing spacetime. This time I have added a page
> to my website on which these arguments are presented
> as illustrations on actual spacetime diagrams. The page
> also contains some text, but the diagrams speak for
> themselves, so it is not necessary to read the text in order
> to understand what they are saying. The failures of the
> spacetime diagram, and the associated Minkowski spacetime,
> are all marked in red on the diagrams.
> I would add, here, that all those so-called crackpots, like
> Henri Wilson, Androcles, and others who have rejected
> the SR light postulate outright as an impossible fabrication,
> or whatever, have always been correct. A universal velocity
> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
> real spacetime. My solution for implementing the light
> postulate does not change that fact, because it produces
> only an APPARENT universal velocity of light, but not
> a real universal velocity of a single light pulse.
> Alen
"Light pulse no 2 has no presence in the moving frame"
You still haven't got the foggiest idea about what a point in the
diagram represents. It is clear that you are even *more* stupid
than Henri Wilson, Androcles and others.
You are getting worse by the day :-|
The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)
Until now I have argued verbally that the spacetime diagram,
and the Minkowski spacetime it represents, cannot portray
a really existing spacetime. This time I have added a page
to my website on which these arguments are presented
as illustrations on actual spacetime diagrams. The page
also contains some text, but the diagrams speak for
themselves, so it is not necessary to read the text in order
to understand what they are saying. The failures of the
spacetime diagram, and the associated Minkowski spacetime,
are all marked in red on the diagrams.
http://www.alenspage.net/SpacetimeDiagram.htm =============================================
The ray does not return to vt as your diagram shows it should.
It continue on going to the left until it reaches 0.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif Don’t correct Einstein’s idiocy for him otherwise you are not showing SR as it really is. The length of the rod extends from 0’ to x’, so its length is x’-0’ = (x-vt) - (0-vt) = x.
The ray returns to 0, not 0’ as you’ve shown but not what Einstein
has written.
The length of the moving rod is then made LONGER, x’ is divided by a number less than 1.
I don’t need to tell you Dork Van de faggot is an idiot, but perhaps you should be aware that Einstein and Minkowski were both idiots.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
I would add, here, that all those so-called crackpots, like
Henri Wilson, Androcles, and others who have rejected
the SR light postulate outright as an impossible fabrication,
or whatever, have always been correct. A universal velocity
of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
real spacetime. My solution for implementing the light
postulate does not change that fact, because it produces
only an APPARENT universal velocity of light, but not
a real universal velocity of a single light pulse.
> On 10/12/2012 5:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
>>> A universal velocity
>>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
>>> real spacetime.
>> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for this
>> impossibility?
> What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?
The fact that it is observed in experiment. This should be enough to admit the possibility.
> On 10/12/2012 12:52 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 5:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
>>>> A universal velocity
>>>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
>>>> real spacetime.
>>> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for this
>>> impossibility?
>> What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?
> The fact that it is observed in experiment.
Two way speed of light is NOT THE SAME as one way speed of light.
And length contraction makes it impossible to measure.
That makes it unobservable.
> This should be enough to
> admit the possibility.
> Now, what is the argument for its IMpossibility?
> On 10/12/2012 8:00 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 12:52 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 5:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
>>>>> A universal velocity
>>>>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
>>>>> real spacetime.
>>>> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for this
>>>> impossibility?
>>> What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?
>> The fact that it is observed in experiment.
> Two way speed of light is NOT THE SAME as one way speed of light.
Two-way speed of light measurement plus isotropy measurement completely constrains one-way speed of light. This you should be able to convince yourself of on a beer napkin.
Plus, even if a two-way light speed indicates that that it is universal, this should indicate the possibility. The *possibility* being allowed, then the onus is on the one claiming that there IS NO possibility to prove that.
> And length contraction makes it impossible to measure.
> That makes it unobservable.
>> This should be enough to
>> admit the possibility.
>> Now, what is the argument for its IMpossibility?
> The mechanism is an impossible one.
Why is it impossible?
And how would you go about showing that there is no possible mechanism? That is, that it CANNOT BE that light has the same speed universally, independent of mechanism? Prove that. Or at least argue it.
> On 10/12/2012 1:06 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 8:00 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 12:52 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 5:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
>>>>>> A universal velocity
>>>>>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
>>>>>> real spacetime.
>>>>> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for
>>>>> this
>>>>> impossibility?
>>>> What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?
>>> The fact that it is observed in experiment.
>> Two way speed of light is NOT THE SAME as one way speed of light.
> Two-way speed of light measurement plus isotropy measurement completely
> constrains one-way speed of light. This you should be able to convince
> yourself of on a beer napkin.
> Plus, even if a two-way light speed indicates that that it is universal,
> this should indicate the possibility. The *possibility* being allowed,
> then the onus is on the one claiming that there IS NO possibility to
> prove that.
>> And length contraction makes it impossible to measure.
>> That makes it unobservable.
>>> This should be enough to
>>> admit the possibility.
>>> Now, what is the argument for its IMpossibility?
>> The mechanism is an impossible one.
> Why is it impossible?
It is quite obvious that if you would measure identical photons, in two differently moving frames, and obtain the same result, that something must have interfered with the measuring process.
Since relativity proves that rods and clocks are variable, it overwhelmingly points to the measuring process.
The photon does not adapt its speed to the frame, the frame's measuring devices adapt to exactly measure c.
> And how would you go about showing that there is no possible mechanism?
It does not work that way : I showed you a possible mechanism.
You show me your mechanism that contradicts mine.
> That is, that it CANNOT BE that light has the same speed universally,
If light speed adapted itself to every frame, there would be no need for length contraction or time dilation.
> independent of mechanism?
Everything has a mechanism. If you cannot explain the mechanism that means you haven't understood it.
"It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
it:" " - lord Kelvin
> On 10/12/2012 8:17 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 1:06 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 8:00 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 12:52 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2012 5:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
>>>>>>> A universal velocity
>>>>>>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
>>>>>>> real spacetime.
>>>>>> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> impossibility?
>>>>> What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?
>>>> The fact that it is observed in experiment.
>>> Two way speed of light is NOT THE SAME as one way speed of light.
>> Two-way speed of light measurement plus isotropy measurement completely
>> constrains one-way speed of light. This you should be able to convince
>> yourself of on a beer napkin.
> QUOTE
> However, it should be noted that only the two-way speed of light (from A
> to B back to A) can unambiguously be measured,...
> UNQUOTE
Yes, what I talked about was the combination of TWO measurements, which completely constrains the one-way speed of light.
>> Plus, even if a two-way light speed indicates that that it is universal,
>> this should indicate the possibility. The *possibility* being allowed,
>> then the onus is on the one claiming that there IS NO possibility to
>> prove that.
>>> And length contraction makes it impossible to measure.
>>> That makes it unobservable.
>>>> This should be enough to
>>>> admit the possibility.
>>>> Now, what is the argument for its IMpossibility?
>>> The mechanism is an impossible one.
>> Why is it impossible?
> It is quite obvious that if you would measure identical photons, in two
> differently moving frames, and obtain the same result, that something
> must have interfered with the measuring process.
Why is it obvious? Please don't respond with "Because it's impossible."
I've already asked you WHY you think it's impossible.
> Since relativity proves that rods and clocks are variable, it
> overwhelmingly points to the measuring process.
Eh?
> The photon does not adapt its speed to the frame, the frame's measuring
> devices adapt to exactly measure c.
>> And how would you go about showing that there is no possible mechanism?
> It does not work that way : I showed you a possible mechanism.
No, you are the one that claims that it is impossible. Back up your claim.
> You show me your mechanism that contradicts mine.
This mechanism is documented. Have you not read about relativity? Do you need pointers for the mechanism of relativity?
>> That is, that it CANNOT BE that light has the same speed universally,
> If light speed adapted itself to every frame, there would be no need for
> length contraction or time dilation.
So what? You've just said that it is impossible for light to be measured to have value c in two frames, and then you just now have proposed a scheme by which it is possible. So what exactly are you claiming?
>> independent of mechanism?
> Everything has a mechanism. If you cannot explain the mechanism that
> means you haven't understood it.
Bullshit. Here you are baiting to be spoonfed on usenet again. Would you like some pointers to good materials on relativity, or do you need your meat cut for you?
> "It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
> particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
> it:" " - lord Kelvin
It seems to me that things have progressed a little bit since Kelvin, who also was completely flummoxed about why atoms don't radiate and why the earth was far older than he thought it could be.
>> Prove that. Or at least argue it.
> I just did.
How so? You proved no impossibility whatsoever. You just said you had a different idea how it could be possible.
>> Everything has a mechanism. If you cannot explain the mechanism that
>> means you haven't understood it.
> Bullshit. Here you are baiting to be spoonfed on usenet again. Would you
> like some pointers to good materials on relativity, or do you need your
> meat cut for you?
>> "It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
>> particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
>> it:" " - lord Kelvin
> It seems to me that things have progressed a little bit since Kelvin,
> who also was completely flummoxed about why atoms don't radiate and why
> the earth was far older than he thought it could be.
>>> Prove that. Or at least argue it.
>> I just did.
> How so? You proved no impossibility whatsoever. You just said you had a
> different idea how it could be possible.
>> Uwe Hayek.
It amuses me, "Uwe", that your idea of a proof of impossibility takes various forms:
"You have not supplied a mechanism that I believe. Therefore it is impossible."
"You haven't proven that you understand the mechanism you claim. Therefore it is impossible."
"I have an alternate mechanism for how it is possible. Therefore your mechanism is impossible and the whole thing is impossible."
It's like you finding a pile of shit in your mother's front yard, and I suggest that your mother's dog Bobo laid the pile of shit there. You say that's impossible. I ask you to prove that it's impossible. You say that you believe instead that the neighbor's dog Bruno laid the pile of shit there, which proves that it is impossible that Bobo laid the shit, because both dogs couldn't have laid the shit. Furthermore, you say, since it is proven that Bobo didn't lay the pile of shit, then the pile of shit has been proven not to exist.
It's not so much your dim grasp of physics that is so highly amusing, it's your general dimness of wits. No matter what your mother says. Or Bobo, for that matter.
>>> Everything has a mechanism. If you cannot explain the mechanism that
>>> means you haven't understood it.
>> Bullshit. Here you are baiting to be spoonfed on usenet again. Would
>> you like some pointers to good materials on relativity, or do you
>> need your meat cut for you?
>>> "It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
>>> particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
>>> it:" " - lord Kelvin
>> It seems to me that things have progressed a little bit since Kelvin,
>> who also was completely flummoxed about why atoms don't radiate and
>> why the earth was far older than he thought it could be.
>>>> Prove that. Or at least argue it.
>>> I just did.
>> How so? You proved no impossibility whatsoever. You just said you
>> had a different idea how it could be possible.
>>> Uwe Hayek.
> It amuses me, "Uwe", that your idea of a proof of impossibility takes
> various forms:
> "You have not supplied a mechanism that I believe. Therefore it is
> impossible."
> "You haven't proven that you understand the mechanism you claim.
> Therefore it is impossible."
> "I have an alternate mechanism for how it is possible. Therefore your
> mechanism is impossible and the whole thing is impossible."
> It's like you finding a pile of shit in your mother's front yard, and
> I suggest that your mother's dog Bobo laid the pile of shit there.
> You say that's impossible. I ask you to prove that it's impossible.
> You say that you believe instead that the neighbor's dog Bruno laid
> the pile of shit there, which proves that it is impossible that Bobo
> laid the shit, because both dogs couldn't have laid the shit.
> Furthermore, you say, since it is proven that Bobo didn't lay the
> pile of shit, then the pile of shit has been proven not to exist.
Take it one step further.
Since he has shown that the pile of shit has been proven not to exist,
and since you claim that it was laid by Bobo, he also has proven that
Bobo cannot exist.
> It's not so much your dim grasp of physics that is so highly amusing,
> it's your general dimness of wits. No matter what your mother says. Or
> Bobo, for that matter.
> > On 10/12/2012 5:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
> >>> A universal velocity
> >>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
> >>> real spacetime.
> >> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for this
> >> impossibility?
> > What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?
> The fact that it is observed in experiment. This should be enough to
> admit the possibility.
> Now, what is the argument for its IMpossibility?
xxein: I guess that you only know a relativity theory of measurement
and not a physic.
> The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)
> Until now I have argued verbally that the spacetime diagram,
> and the Minkowski spacetime it represents, cannot portray
> a really existing spacetime. This time I have added a page
> to my website on which these arguments are presented
> as illustrations on actual spacetime diagrams. The page
> also contains some text, but the diagrams speak for
> themselves, so it is not necessary to read the text in order
> to understand what they are saying. The failures of the
> spacetime diagram, and the associated Minkowski spacetime,
> are all marked in red on the diagrams.
> I would add, here, that all those so-called crackpots, like
> Henri Wilson, Androcles, and others who have rejected
> the SR light postulate outright as an impossible fabrication,
> or whatever, have always been correct. A universal velocity
> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
> real spacetime. My solution for implementing the light
> postulate does not change that fact, because it produces
> only an APPARENT universal velocity of light, but not
> a real universal velocity of a single light pulse.
> Alen
Nice work, but I think you need to find real explanations for why past
and future do not exist. Unfortunately, I think this is impossible
using math or physics. Besides, I find your explanations quite
convoluted as well as contradictory.
The reason why I do not think past and future exist is as follows.
The past and future are psychological rather than physical realities.
Generally, the human brain is capable of remembering and recalling
information. We call this memory. What I think memory does is absorb
information - via the cause and effect of motion.
For example. To create a memory, something moves, and the brain
somehow records this motion.
While the brain is physically effected by sense data, it is additional
layers of thinking that places motion against a timeline.
>> The photon does not adapt its speed to the frame, the frame's measuring
>> devices adapt to exactly measure c.
>>> And how would you go about showing that there is no possible mechanism?
>> It does not work that way : I showed you a possible mechanism.
> No, you are the one that claims that it is impossible. Back up your claim.
>> You show me your mechanism that contradicts mine.
> This mechanism is documented. Have you not read about relativity? Do you
> need pointers for the mechanism of relativity?
>>> That is, that it CANNOT BE that light has the same speed universally,
>> If light speed adapted itself to every frame, there would be no need for
>> length contraction or time dilation.
> So what? You've just said that it is impossible for light to be measured
> to have value c in two frames, and then you just now have proposed a
> scheme by which it is possible. So what exactly are you claiming?
>>> independent of mechanism?
>> Everything has a mechanism. If you cannot explain the mechanism that
>> means you haven't understood it.
> Bullshit. Here you are baiting to be spoonfed on usenet again. Would you
> like some pointers to good materials on relativity, or do you need your
> meat cut for you?
>> "It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
>> particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
>> it:" " - lord Kelvin
> It seems to me that things have progressed
The correct word is regressed. And not by a small amount.
a little bit since Kelvin,
> who also was completely flummoxed about why atoms don't radiate and why
> the earth was far older than he thought it could be.
>>> Prove that. Or at least argue it.
>> I just did.
> How so? You proved no impossibility whatsoever. You just said you had a
> different idea how it could be possible.
Discussion with you are pointless.
I think we are discussing semantics, and we have a different viewpoint.
I am interested in the ontology or the mechanism, you only in the local measurement that your textbook prescribes.
I fully agree that you say "two way speed of light is isotropic in all frames". But the mechanism is that clocks and rods are variable. Light does not adjust its speed to the frame. And that EXCLUDES the one way speed of light to be isotropic. Because then light has to adapt its speed to any frame, and there should be no need for time dilation and length contraction.
> >> QUOTE
> >> However, it should be noted that only the two-way speed of light (from A
> >> to B back to A) can unambiguously be measured,...
> >> UNQUOTE
> > Yes, what I talked about was the combination of TWO measurements, which
> > completely constrains the one-way speed of light.
> Learn English. "ONLY the two way speed of light can UNAMBIGUOUSLY be
> measured"
> That means the measured one way speed of light is ambiguous, therefore
> cannot be exactly determined.
> >>> Plus, even if a two-way light speed indicates that that it is universal,
> This is incorrect. Therefore your conclusion is also.
> Again, again and again you prove that you have absolutely no insight in
> physics whatsoever, and are unable to reason in a logical way.
> >> Since relativity proves that rods and clocks are variable, it
> >> overwhelmingly points to the measuring process.
> > Eh?
> What part of time dilation or length contraction you do not understand ?
> >> The photon does not adapt its speed to the frame, the frame's measuring
> >> devices adapt to exactly measure c.
> >>> And how would you go about showing that there is no possible mechanism?
> >> It does not work that way : I showed you a possible mechanism.
> > No, you are the one that claims that it is impossible. Back up your claim.
> >> You show me your mechanism that contradicts mine.
> > This mechanism is documented. Have you not read about relativity? Do you
> > need pointers for the mechanism of relativity?
> >>> That is, that it CANNOT BE that light has the same speed universally,
> >> If light speed adapted itself to every frame, there would be no need for
> >> length contraction or time dilation.
> > So what? You've just said that it is impossible for light to be measured
> > to have value c in two frames, and then you just now have proposed a
> > scheme by which it is possible. So what exactly are you claiming?
> >>> independent of mechanism?
> >> Everything has a mechanism. If you cannot explain the mechanism that
> >> means you haven't understood it.
> > Bullshit. Here you are baiting to be spoonfed on usenet again. Would you
> > like some pointers to good materials on relativity, or do you need your
> > meat cut for you?
> >> "It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
> >> particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
> >> it:" " - lord Kelvin
> > It seems to me that things have progressed
> The correct word is regressed. And not by a small amount.
> a little bit since Kelvin,
> > who also was completely flummoxed about why atoms don't radiate and why
> > the earth was far older than he thought it could be.
> >>> Prove that. Or at least argue it.
> >> I just did.
> > How so? You proved no impossibility whatsoever. You just said you had a
> > different idea how it could be possible.
> Discussion with you are pointless.
> I think we are discussing semantics, and we have a different viewpoint.
> I am interested in the ontology or the mechanism, you only in the local
> measurement that your textbook prescribes.
> I fully agree that you say "two way speed of light is isotropic in all
> frames". But the mechanism is that clocks and rods are variable. Light
> does not adjust its speed to the frame. And that EXCLUDES the one way
> speed of light to be isotropic. Because then light has to adapt its
> speed to any frame, and there should be no need for time dilation and
> length contraction.
> Uwe Hayek.
SR is not a bad theory. It is a rotten theory. You are right, a pulse
of light passing over two observers in relative motion cannot adjusts
its speed as there is no known mechanism by which it can. Therefore,
if light speed is same in all frames then their measuring instruments
must undergo change. However, since all uniform motions are equivalent
and since even SR admits that there is no change in proper time and
proper length, observers moving with different speeds must measure
different speed of light.
It is for this reason; constant speed of light is a postulate and a
wrong one.
> The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)
> Until now I have argued verbally that the spacetime diagram,
> and the Minkowski spacetime it represents, cannot portray
> a really existing spacetime. This time I have added a page
> to my website on which these arguments are presented
> as illustrations on actual spacetime diagrams. The page
> also contains some text, but the diagrams speak for
> themselves, so it is not necessary to read the text in order
> to understand what they are saying. The failures of the
> spacetime diagram, and the associated Minkowski spacetime,
> are all marked in red on the diagrams.
> I would add, here, that all those so-called crackpots, like
> Henri Wilson, Androcles, and others who have rejected
> the SR light postulate outright as an impossible fabrication,
> or whatever, have always been correct.
> > The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)
> > Until now I have argued verbally that the spacetime diagram,
> > and the Minkowski spacetime it represents, cannot portray
> > a really existing spacetime. This time I have added a page
> > to my website on which these arguments are presented
> > as illustrations on actual spacetime diagrams. The page
> > also contains some text, but the diagrams speak for
> > themselves, so it is not necessary to read the text in order
> > to understand what they are saying. The failures of the
> > spacetime diagram, and the associated Minkowski spacetime,
> > are all marked in red on the diagrams.
> > I would add, here, that all those so-called crackpots, like
> > Henri Wilson, Androcles, and others who have rejected
> > the SR light postulate outright as an impossible fabrication,
> > or whatever, have always been correct. A universal velocity
> > of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
> > real spacetime. My solution for implementing the light
> > postulate does not change that fact, because it produces
> > only an APPARENT universal velocity of light, but not
> > a real universal velocity of a single light pulse.
> > Alen
> "Light pulse no 2 has no presence in the moving frame"
> You still haven't got the foggiest idea about what a point in the
> diagram represents. It is clear that you are even *more* stupid
> than Henri Wilson, Androcles and others.
> You are getting worse by the day :-|
> I would add, here, that all those so-called crackpots, like
> Henri Wilson, Androcles, and others who have rejected
> the SR light postulate outright as an impossible fabrication,
> or whatever, have always been correct. A universal velocity
> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
> real spacetime. My solution for implementing the light
> postulate does not change that fact, because it produces
> only an APPARENT universal velocity of light, but not
> a real universal velocity of a single light pulse.
> Alen
-----------------------
indeed no curvature and no schmervature of space
that was a flop of Einstein
space is by definition nothing
so it has no properties whatsoever except hosting mass
AND IT IS MASS WHO DOES THE RICK OF ANY ATTRACTION FORCE (OR REPULSION FORCE )
force is done by force messengers from mass !!
